BOSTON — “The biggest embarrassment since Michael Dukakis.”
Such has been the general reaction to Massachusetts’ deadlocked
debacle of a constitutional convention on gay marriage, and just
when the rest of the country was beginning to accept that we in the
Bay State had changed and could be counted on to conduct ourselves
in political matters like grown-ups.
The entire state legislature not only failed miserably in its
attempt to offer a needed corrective to the self-righteous
judiciary but managed to turn the entire proceeding into the
equivalent of the short Greek one’s tank-riding episode. Most
members of the legislature simply wanted the whole gay marriage
issue to go away and were quite content to weasel out of taking a
stand one way or the other. So maybe they could come up with a deal
that would pretend to give both sides what they wanted.
This civil unions compromise is precisely what the state senate
was in the process of attempting when it meekly petitioned its
masters on the Supreme Judicial Court to find out if this would be
acceptable. The supremes responded with an advisory opinion that in
essence said, “We make the laws now, thank you, and we think there
should be gay marriage. So play along.”
LEGISLATORS THEN FACED two realistic choices: Rewrite the laws as
they were commanded to do by the supremes or amend the state
constitution to reverse their decision. (Yes, yes, defiance of the
court’s ruling à la Roy Moore or impeaching the
rogue judges were also options, but note I said “realistic
choices.”) They failed to do either.
To be fair, the process itself seems designed to guarantee
failure. Massachusetts’ constitution, which predates the U.S.
Constitution and is thus the oldest governing constitution in the
world, is incredibly difficult to alter.
To wit, any amendment must be approved by a majority of state
lawmakers in joint sessions of two successive state legislatures
and then placed on the ballot for a public vote. This means that
the earliest an amendment could have been adopted would be 2006, a
year and a half after gay marriages would already have begun in the
state.
This put the state’s politicians in the unenviable position of
voting for an amendment that likely would take benefits away from
same-sex couples who already had them. Worse, polling has revealed
Massachusetts to be more evenly split than the country at large on
the issue.
Many Democratic legislators had to juggle the concerns of their
more gay-friendly liberal constituents with those of socially
conservative Catholic voters in their districts. Any vote either
way is sure to anger large numbers of Bay State voters.
Consequently, there were a lot of gay marriage opponents who
didn’t understand the arguments for their position because they
were only striking a pose to avoid constituent backlash. Similarly,
a lot of his-and-his supporters were heard making hyperbolic
statements that take for granted that this issue is the
civil-rights struggle of the 21st century and that any concerns
about the consequences of redefining marriage amount to
homophobia.
State Sen. Diane Wilkerson, in an unintentionally hilarious
moment during the debate, broke down in tears. She compared
anti-gay discrimination with her prosecution for, and conviction
on, charges of tax fraud.
BUT THE EFFORT to amend the state constitution really broke down
over tactical differences among gay marriage opponents with regard
to civil unions. Traditionalists could not agree whether to
explicitly include civil unions in an amendment banning gay
marriage, to allow a future vote on the issue, or to ban them as
well.
Attempts at compromise failed due to perceptions of bad faith.
Some legislators did not want to vote for Senate President Robert
Travaglini’s amendment including civil unions because they
suspected he did not really in principle object to gay marriage;
others did not vote for House Speaker Tom Finneran’s amendment to
ban gay marriage but reserve the power for the legislature to allow
civil unions in the future because they suspected he was not really
in favor of civil unions.
In the end, they did nothing. Most Massachusetts legislators do
not favor gay marriage. But they cannot agree on a way to amend the
constitution to prevent it. If they do not, it will happen. Even if
they do, it will probably happen, at least from this May until
2006.
The constitutional fight will nevertheless carry on another day
when the joint session reconvenes, though the prospects for serious
action are not promising. The drama may prove entertaining for some
in the peanut gallery, but tragicomedies are an acquired taste.
